Why are some people enjoying the possible break up of the UK?

[filmstar-en]

@Mk_VII

For at least a proportion of people the decision will be an emotion-driven one, just as the argument about Britain’s continuing membership of the EU.

The danger is that at a political union that has stood for 300 years will be dissolved by an electorate that is quite unused the making decisions about complex matters like a Constitutional settlement.

Moreover, the franchise will be extended to include 16 and 17 year olds. Given the level of political education the effect of this seems to be to reduce politics to the level of game show.

This will be a very strange vote. There are 800,000 Scots resident in the rest of the UK that won’t get to vote, while there are 400,000 from the rest of the UK, but living in Scotland who will. There are also 100,000 who travel back and forth across the border.

For the record, it is also Comservative policy to have a vote on the EU.

Again, I think this is very misguided.

These sort of the questions have rarely been put the British electorate, many of whom are not that interested in nuances of the constitution (a subject that is hardly taught in schools.) Nor do they much of an idea about the intricacies of the Treaty of Rome.

These matters are very important and here we have politicians encouraging people not to study the subject, instead to vote according to what?

Scottish National pride? Resentment about the larger country next door? Or in the case of the EU vote, fears that have been stoked up about immigration and xenophobia.

This is no basis on which a country should be making fundamental decisions. It is politicians trying to find a short cut towards resolving a political debate by appealing the public.

The Conservative party has a problem with anti-EU sentiment: so have a referendum. The Conservative party has a problem with Scottish independence: so have a referendum.

I guess that absolves them of the potentially disasterous consequences. It seems fundamentally weak and irresponsible and plays into the hands of maverick single issue parties that sway opinion with appeals to emotion rather than reason.

[filmstar-en]

@Batistuta

Cite?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/198/19806.htm

[Pjen]

@Ryan_Liam

You still don’t understand, Scotland is part of Britain, so Britain gave a portion of itself the chance to vote on independence, you’re characterising Scotland as a separate entity from Britain, where as it is an integral part of the Union, just as England is.

I said it ushered Thatcher in '79 because of the SNP withdrawal of support to Callaghan in 78, how exactly did I get it the wrong way round?

I have a problem with your assertion that your pro-independence stance isn’t based on some emotion when you make comments such as;

I think it’s quite understandable to be emotional about it, and I won’t be one to say I am not, I don’t think it’s unusual to feel passionate about something like this regardless of your political stance, but don’t pretend to act like it’s entirely based on an academic perspective.

Scotland has been part of a British State for some centuries, but is widely recognised as still being a separate Nation and sees itself as that. No state under rule of law can successfully oppose a request for a subsidiary Nation to separate if the desire is strong enough (see Ireland). The Brisih State did not voluntarily encourage a referendum on Independence but had to be bullied into it by an SNP majority (Unlikely under the political set up here) and the threat that they would call a poll without London’s agreement.

My comment about supposing being a self hating Englishman was somewhat ironic. As I have said, I am on the fence regarding Independence- I fear it may be risky, but I feel that it is a right that belongs to the people of Scotland to decide on.

[Pjen]

@Ryan_Liam

We spend alot of money on trying to be a great power and leader? Our budget for defence is 2.3%, during the Cold war, it wasn’t anything above 10%.

And what’s with this ‘true place in the world?’ Our true place is the one we consider we should be at, not at some peer review of nations.

They should of allowed the Scottish Tories to be separate like they were before, it used to be the Unionist party until 1965.

And Scotland’s ‘True place in the world’ may differ considerably, wishing to be Scandinavian or Irish style rather than British.

Unionist referred to the Irish question, not the Scottish one!

[Pjen]

@filmstar-en

The danger is that at a political union that has stood for 300 years will be dissolved by an electorate that is quite unused the making decisions about complex matters like a Constitutional settlement.

Moreover, the franchise will be extended to include 16 and 17 year olds. Given the level of political education the effect of this seems to be to reduce politics to the level of game show.

This will be a very strange vote. There are 800,000 Scots resident in the rest of the UK that won’t get to vote, while there are 400,000 from the rest of the UK, but living in Scotland who will. There are also 100,000 who travel back and forth across the border.

For the record, it is also Comservative policy to have a vote on the EU.

Again, I think this is very misguided.

These sort of the questions have rarely been put the British electorate, many of whom are not that interested in nuances of the constitution (a subject that is hardly taught in schools.) Nor do they much of an idea about the intricacies of the Treaty of Rome.

These matters are very important and here we have politicians encouraging people not to study the subject, instead to vote according to what?

Scottish National pride? Resentment about the larger country next door? Or in the case of the EU vote, fears that have been stoked up about immigration and xenophobia.

This is no basis on which a country should be making fundamental decisions. It is politicians trying to find a short cut towards resolving a political debate by appealing the public.

The Conservative party has a problem with anti-EU sentiment: so have a referendum. The Conservative party has a problem with Scottish independence: so have a referendum.

I guess that absolves them of the potentially disasterous consequences. It seems fundamentally weak and irresponsible and plays into the hands of maverick single issue parties that sway opinion with appeals to emotion rather than reason.

That is so condescending and again something that drives people into the Nationalist camp by its distrust of the Scottish electorate… There is no other way to determine National desires than a plebiscite of some kind. It would be grossly UNfair for the Scottish Parliament to declare independence as it was elected on less than 50% of the vote. What do you suggest- international arbitration.

And who should decide- why, the people who live here, pay taxes here and will prosper or suffer under the proposal- the Scottish Electorate. Why should this not include 16-17 year olds (LibDem policy objective for many tyears, obstructed by British conservatism). Why should it include ‘ex-patriate scots’- how to define them? There is no passport or definition beyond birth. My children are English by Birth (moving here when they were 4 and 2 years old.) My cousin’s children were born in Scotland but moved to England when they were 3 an 1 years old. Should they have Scottish nationality and a right to vote at 16, but mine not. There is no way to define a Scottish electorate. Any Scot living abroad who has registered under the standard procedure for expatriates will have a vote, but this will not apply to Scots in the rest of the UK as they alredy have a vote there. this is petty caviling over an unexpected move in the polls!

The SNP is anything but a single issue party- it has a comprehensive national programme that is being implemented very well thank you!

[Pjen]

@filmstar-en

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/198/19806.htm

Your original assertion was:

“The SNP policy is for Scotland to be effectively demilitiarised in terms of any international capabilty and barely able to defend itself. Moreover it intends to compromise the capabilty of the UK by insisting on the removal of a key asset.”
The cite you give does not support your contention.

"The Scottish armed forces will be focused on territorial defence, aid to the civil power and also** support for the international community. The Multi Role Brigade structure and interoperable air and sea assets will provide deployable capabilities for United Nations sanctioned missions and support of humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace-making ‘Petersberg Tasks’.**

The ‘Key Asset’ is not to be ‘removed’. Faslane will become non-nuclear and the UK will need to clear Coulport, but it is free to reprovide these in its own territory. The UK cannot continue to site nuclear facilities against the will of the people- all our nuclear power plants are being decommissioned currently and no more will be built. Faslane will have to be reprovided in Plymouth or elsewhere!

[Batistuta]

@Pjen

Your original assertion was:

“The SNP policy is for Scotland to be effectively demilitiarised in terms of any international capabilty and barely able to defend itself. Moreover it intends to compromise the capabilty of the UK by insisting on the removal of a key asset.”
The cite you give does not support your contention.

"The Scottish armed forces will be focused on territorial defence, aid to the civil power and also** support for the international community. The Multi Role Brigade structure and interoperable air and sea assets will provide deployable capabilities for United Nations sanctioned missions and support of humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace-making ‘Petersberg Tasks’.**

The ‘Key Asset’ is not to be ‘removed’. Faslane will become non-nuclear and the UK will need to clear Coulport, but it is free to reprovide these in its own territory. The UK cannot continue to site nuclear facilities against the will of the people- all our nuclear power plants are being decommissioned currently and no more will be built. Faslane will have to be reprovided in Plymouth or elsewhere!

Exactly my point when I asked for a cite. Thanks

[Ryan_Liam]

@Pjen

Scotland has been part of a British State for some centuries, but is widely recognised as still being a separate Nation and sees itself as that. No state under rule of law can successfully oppose a request for a subsidiary Nation to separate if the desire is strong enough (see Ireland). The Brisih State did not voluntarily encourage a referendum on Independence but had to be bullied into it by an SNP majority (Unlikely under the political set up here) and the threat that they would call a poll without London’s agreement.

My comment about supposing being a self hating Englishman was somewhat ironic. As I have said, I am on the fence regarding Independence- I fear it may be risky, but I feel that it is a right that belongs to the people of Scotland to decide on.

You are not on the fence regarding independence, you’ve clearly asserted pro independence views in this thread! All of which is fine, but go ahead, add ‘it may be risky’ to appear objective at the end.

Also to add, England and Wales are separate nations within the Union just as much as Scotland is, there is room for some nationalism within the Union and there always has been. As for having to bully them into a referendum, there needs to be a clear majority and mandate for the referendum to be held before anything concrete can be pushed forward in terms of legislation, and I don’t doubt that maybe they dragged their feet, but that’s to be expected somewhat when you’re asking people to fact the fact that the nation could be irrevocably changed forever.

Pjen
And Scotland’s ‘True place in the world’ may differ considerably, wishing to be Scandinavian or Irish style rather than British.

If it did, you’d of seen that kind of viewpoint manifest itself demonstrably. You ignore the large amount of Unionist supporters in Scotland.

Unionist referred to the Irish question, not the Scottish one!

Obviously, but I’m referring to the attempts to turn the Scottish conservatives into a separate party which would represent the Tories there.

[Batistuta]

@Ryan_Liam

If it did, you’d of seen that kind of viewpoint manifest itself demonstrably. You ignore the large amount of Unionist supporters in Scotland.

You can’t be serious.

[Mk_VII]

No state under rule of law can successfully oppose a request for a subsidiary Nation to separate if the desire is strong enough

Exactly what the Washington government did do 150 years ago when the Montgomery/Richmond government wanted to separate.

[Pjen]

@Ryan_Liam

You are not on the fence regarding independence, you’ve clearly asserted pro independence views in this thread! All of which is fine, but go ahead, add ‘it may be risky’ to appear objective at the end.

I refer you to my first post about the referendum in this thread (initially I was just commenting on the language issue.)

"Speaking as English living in Scotland for over a decade, there is much pride here in how much better we are governed than the rest of the UK in devolved areas- Education, Health Service, Local Government, Legal System, Penal Policy and so on. Looking back to England from the outside from here looks like observing Bedlam on a bad day. We have a system that seems to more at peace with itself and communitarian in every aspect. Yet we are still unable to control many aspects of society in such a manner.

Whatever the outcome in September, much more autonomy will flow to Scotland and in my opinion this can only be a good thing."

Quite on the fence- Pro-devolution strongly and Pro-Independence less so.

[Pjen]

@Mk_VII

Exactly what the Washington government did do 150 years ago when the Montgomery/Richmond government wanted to separate.

No Modern State could do that today with impunity. Despite what the Constitution says, if a State or States wanted to leave, there would be little option but to allow it if insurrection was likely. Nothing kills an economy like civil war!

[Pjen]

@ Ryan Liam- have you ever spent any time in the company of Scots or is your knowledge only due to chattering class Scots on the TV?

[Steken]

@Celyn

Um, that’s not really what it’s all about, you know. No wish to “humiliate” the English.

For me, it is.

[filmstar-en]

@Batistuta

Exactly my point when I asked for a cite. Thanks

I suggest you read through these documents rather than simply cut and paste the SNP policy statement.

The SNP seem to be quite keen on writing policies that they cannot implement.

This document discussed the implication of a removing nuclear capability from Scotland. It makes interesting reading.

I’m afraid it is not simply a case of an independent Scotland saying ‘please take them away’ and a lot of trucks arrive and whisk the nuclear warheads away to someplace is England.

Curiously enough, the facilities are Faslane and Coulport are quite major facilities that cannot be easily reproduced elsewhere. The were originally selected in the 1960s because of their deep water access and remoteness from large population centres and other industrial facilities. Finding equivalent sites in the rest of the UK is likely to be difficult. Construction, based on the recent extension of Faslane would be expensive (several billion). The removal would go also take a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 20 years. The former case could only be done by disarming the UK nuclear deterrent immediately and not restoring it until the new facilities are in place.

The paper discusses the various options and a later paper makes clear that shutting down the UK nuclear deterrent is not UK government policy. Moreover, the handling of the warheads at these facilities is a exercise that can only be completed by personnel from the rest of the UK.

There is also the question of who is footing the bill. The facilities in Scotland cost about £2billion a year to maintain. The entire annual Scottish defence budget is about the same.

The SNP are committed to removing nuclear weapons from Scotland and wish to join NATO as long as NATO commit to nuclear disarmament. No sticking points there then!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/861/861.pdf

I really don’t think you guys get it.

Scotland is a small country and independence comes with a very big bill attached. In this case, there are also a lot of precision engineering jobs at stake as the industry around these facilities are dismantled. Faslane and Coulport nuclear facilities are not going anywhere very quickly.

This policy will be a matter an important element of any negotiation should the vote be for independence.

[Pjen]

@filmstar-en

I suggest you read through these documents rather than simply cut and paste the SNP policy statement.

The SNP seem to be quite keen on writing policies that they cannot implement.

This document discussed the implication of a removing nuclear capability from Scotland. It makes interesting reading.

I’m afraid it is not simply a case of an independent Scotland saying ‘please take them away’ and a lot of trucks arrive and whisk the nuclear warheads away to someplace is England.

Curiously enough, the facilities are Faslane and Coulport are quite major facilities that cannot be easily reproduced elsewhere. The were originally selected in the 1960s because of their deep water access and remoteness from large population centres and other industrial facilities. Finding equivalent sites in the rest of the UK is likely to be difficult. Construction, based on the recent extension of Faslane would be expensive (several billion). The removal would go also take a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 20 years. The former case could only be done by disarming the UK nuclear deterrent immediately and not restoring it until the new facilities are in place.

The paper discusses the various options and a later paper makes clear that shutting down the UK nuclear deterrent is not UK government policy. Moreover, the handling of the warheads at these facilities is a exercise that can only be completed by personnel from the rest of the UK.

There is also the question of who is footing the bill. The facilities in Scotland cost about £2billion a year to maintain. The entire annual Scottish defence budget is about the same.

The SNP are committed to removing nuclear weapons from Scotland and wish to join NATO as long as NATO commit to nuclear disarmament. No sticking points there then!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/861/861.pdf

I really don’t think you guys get it.

Scotland is a small country and independence comes with a very big bill attached. In this case, there are also a lot of precision engineering jobs at stake as the industry around these facilities are dismantled. Faslane and Coulport nuclear facilities are not going anywhere very quickly.

This policy will be a matter an important element of any negotiation should the vote be for independence.

It is you that is not ‘getting it’.

Yes, if Scotland gets its independence (looking more likely as the weeks go on) then there will be difficulties on each side and with third parties.

Yes, Scotland wants to be Nuclear Free. If it is an independent nation then that is within its purview to decide- it has nothing to do with Rump UK- the decision will be made by Scotland. That is what independence is about- exercise of power and sovereignty.

Yes, it will be expensive and the cost will fall entirely on the Rump UK exchequer- they want the toys, they will have to pay for them. Also they will be liable for decommissioning Coulport and Faslane and disposing of the Nuclear contaminated materials outside Scotland.

Of course this will be subject to negotiation- and could take a decade. Scotland would put up with a decade of having nuclear weapons on its soil, but there would be a quid pro quo- no roadblocks regarding the Pound or membership of international organisations. The bottom line is that if Scotland said they were to close in two years, they would have to close in two years. But it will be negotiated.

The Review you quote is one-sided- it does not consider the legalities or realities of Scottish independence.

The SNP do not require that NATO become non-nuclear, but like other members will require that nuclear weapons are not brought within its boundaries. Denmark and Sweden have similar requirements.

The SNP wish to join NATO but if for some strange reason this is removed, because of Scotland’s strategic position similar to Ireland, it would be shielded anyway from any perceivable threat.

Loss of any nuclear related engineering jobs is likely to be more than compensated by the possibility of extra industry from a reduced Corporation Tax.

[filmstar-en]

The report is a record of the discussion beween the UK government and the Scottish government. You might think it one sided, because I guess you don’t like its rather obvious implications.

I would point out that nuclear facilities in Scotland were bought and paid for by the UK as a whole and that includes Scotland. Therefore the costs of moving them will be shared. Independence is not a clean sheet of paper, Scotland has history and the political and economic decisions of the past have to be paid for. They cannot be easily swept over the border like that.

Someone has to pay the ferryman.

I am sure if the Scottish people voted that it is their manifest destiny to all go to Mars, I am sure they have they could be feel very proud about making such a bold and independent decision. Scotland finding the loose change at the bottom of that very deep magic SNP sporran is about as likely a prospect.

The Nationalist line is the rest of the UK will pay for all of their magnificent policies. I don’t think the 50million people in the rest of the UK will agree with that. Sorry to rain on your parade.

The SNP will not be able to deliver this policy. It is hot air.

If you look at the other discussions, the cost of creating a Scottish Army, Navy and Airforce are also considerably more than than the projected defense budget. A lot of the Infrastructure is based in the rest of the UK. Much will have to be built from scratch. It is very clear that the SNP have not really started looking at this and its assumptions are unrealistic.

The cold reality of dismantling the defence industries that currently building the Royal Navys warships in Scotland, including aircraft carriers, is no small matter.

And it is going to finance this by…increasing corporation tax. Well, what a fine investment opportunity Scotland will present to the world!

Who writes this stuff? Baldrick?

[amanset]

@Pjen

The SNP do not require that NATO become non-nuclear, but like other members will require that nuclear weapons are not brought within its boundaries. Denmark and Sweden have similar requirements.

Minor point, but Sweden isn’t actually a member of NATO. In fact, it is a rather large discussion here, a lot of people do not want it to ever happen as they see it as damaging the historic neutrality of the country. Hell, they hardly contribute to the UN Peacekeeping force either.

[Pjen]

@amanset

Minor point, but Sweden isn’t actually a member of NATO. In fact, it is a rather large discussion here, a lot of people do not want it to ever happen as they see it as damaging the historic neutrality of the country. Hell, they hardly contribute to the UN Peacekeeping force either.

I meant Norway. Sweden collaborates with NATO but asks for no nuclear presence.

[Pjen]

@filmstar-en

The report is a record of the discussion beween the UK government and the Scottish government. You might think it one sided, because I guess you don’t like its rather obvious implications.

I would point out that nuclear facilities in Scotland were bought and paid for by the UK as a whole and that includes Scotland. Therefore the costs of moving them will be shared. Independence is not a clean sheet of paper, Scotland has history and the political and economic decisions of the past have to be paid for. They cannot be easily swept over the border like that.

Someone has to pay the ferryman.

I am sure if the Scottish people voted that it is their manifest destiny to all go to Mars, I am sure they have they could be feel very proud about making such a bold and independent decision. Scotland finding the loose change at the bottom of that very deep magic SNP sporran is about as likely a prospect.

The Nationalist line is the rest of the UK will pay for all of their magnificent policies. I don’t think the 50million people in the rest of the UK will agree with that. Sorry to rain on your parade.

The SNP will not be able to deliver this policy. It is hot air.

If you look at the other discussions, the cost of creating a Scottish Army, Navy and Airforce are also considerably more than than the projected defense budget. A lot of the Infrastructure is based in the rest of the UK. Much will have to be built from scratch. It is very clear that the SNP have not really started looking at this and its assumptions are unrealistic.

The cold reality of dismantling the defence industries that currently building the Royal Navys warships in Scotland, including aircraft carriers, is no small matter.

And it is going to finance this by…increasing corporation tax. Well, what a fine investment opportunity Scotland will present to the world!

Who writes this stuff? Baldrick?

You seem fixated by your own illusions.

The Scottish Defence force has been costed at less than the current outlay by Scotland for British forces. See the costings in the White Paper.

If Scotland has an historic responsibility for clean up of Faslane and Coulport, then it would be less than 10% of the total. And that would bargained against for allowing the UK to use them- a fair rent for the need for a foreign country to keep nuclear weapons in an Independent Scotland.

DECREASING corporation tax to encourage business in!

You just don’t seem to grasp the reality of Scotland not being a part of the British State.

Letting the rump UK maintain a base in an independent Scotland for 2-20 years is a good bargaining chip!